did anyone take into account the possibility of atmospheric and climatic change, into the steady decrease of human lifespans during the time of the biblical texts? there's a lot of factors that can affect our health..
problem is, you cant pick out the parts of the old testiment that you like, and dismiss the rest as nonsense.
life span averaged 700 years before the flood, after the flood it dropped off rapidly.
That coupled with the statements that before the flood it never rained, but the humidity was high - whatever catistrauphic event that happened to cause the flood and the sudden change in plate tectonics, could have caused several changes in the enviroment - change in air pressure, change in temps - change in the amount of radition from the sun that reaches the earths surface - oxygen content of the atmosphere
and the problem with science trying to go back and confirm or refute this is, science assumes that any changes occurred gradually - they look at how fast snow piles up on a glacier now, or how fast rings form on trees, or whatever, and assume that is how its always been.
In mathematics an event like the flood is called a discontinuity - things happened a certain way before, then a huge sudden change happened, and things happen differently after.
Looking at the "before" data you would not see the discontinuity coming, and looking at the "after" data , you would not be able to tell it was there.
ken please do you think before posting??? or are you just trying to bait us????
where is the evidence to back up any of your bible based claims????????
we can now date how long a man lived by looking at wear on joints of the bones found. NO man ever lived more than 120 years max and very few did anywhere near that age. btw where is the traces of that flood in the earths records, it is NO WHERE TO BE FOUND!!!!!
then you say""That coupled with the statements that before the flood it never rained, but the humidity was high - whatever catistrauphic event that happened to cause the flood and the sudden change in "after" data , you would not be able to tell it was there. could have caused several changes in the enviroment - change in air pressure, change in temps - change in the amount of radition from the sun that reaches the earths surface - oxygen content of the atmosphere
and the problem with science trying to go back and confirm or refute this is, science assumes that any changes occurred gradually - they look at how fast snow piles up on a glacier now, or how fast rings form on trees, or whatever, and assume that is how its always been.
In mathematics an event like the flood is called a discontinuity - things happened a certain way before, then a huge sudden change happened, and things happen differently after.
Looking at the "before" data you would not see the discontinuity coming, and looking at the "after" data , you would not be able to tell it was there.""
1 never RAINED??????? BS no way we have evidence of erosion caused by rain even fossil mud with rain drop impacts clearly visable SO pure BS
2plate tectonics take millions of years SO no real changes in life of man sorry but BS NO WAY
3change in air pressure??
where did you get that from we have old air traped in ice cores, it is cleaner yes different pressures NO WAY BS
4 ""change in temps - change in the amount of radition from the sun""
well temps change but there is no evidence of BIG changes in the resent past 6000 years at all, ice age was 11,000 years ago at it's end and sun burns at a constant rate with no evidence of big or fast changes in the record
5 ""oxygen content of the atmosphere""
constant over last millions of years no changes SO MORE BS
6""science assumes that any changes occurred gradually"",
wrong the data says what the timing is, the latest data on end of iceage said it happend fast 2-3 years transition ONLY
7""Looking at the "before" data you would not see the discontinuity coming, and looking at the "after" data , you would not be able to tell it was there.""
lets look at all the DATA, NO world wide flood EVER happend at all, at any date no evidence of long lived men EVER or any of your bible BS no tower of babble ever found no angel with a flaming sword or even the garden he is supposted to be guarding
Fact of the matter is, you need evidence to support ANY claim. And the bible just isn't evidence. Evolution has more facts. Plain and simple. You are dismissing the radioactivity found by hubble of the big bang? The fact that the universe is expanding?
IP: Logged
05:30 PM
Steve Normington Member
Posts: 7663 From: Mesa, AZ, USA Registered: Apr 2001
Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: Dont confuse technology with intelligence and capibility - technology builds on itself over the centuries as long as civilization does not collapse
but intelligence and wisdom does not. The SAT scores in the US are a good example of that - kids who get a perfect SAT score in 2002 would do poorly on the SAT test given in 1960 - the average scores keep dropping and they keep making the test easier - and that is only over a 40 year period.
Don't confuse intelligence with education. How do you know whether the kids of 2002 are less intelligent or less educated than the kids in 1960?
sorry rayb but your scientific dating systems are all based on each other, not on any hard facts, repeatable situtions, or docuemented observation over thousands of years.
Scientist bill says the rocks are 100 million years old, based on the fossils found in them
and scientist bob looks at the same rocks and says the fossils are 100 million years old, based on the rock layers they were found in.
Its not that each dating method VERIFIES the other ones - they are all based on what the other one says - with is all based on initial ASSUMPTIONS - not on measureble facts.
If I hand you a pound of iron oxide dust and you are a geologist, you would asssume the dust had once been a solid hunk of iron, that slowly rusted over hundreds or thousands of years - so based on the rate at which iron oxidizes, you would put a date on the material, and how long it took to get to its current state.
But someone else would assume it was iron dust, that oxidized in only a few years, putting a different date on it.
(this is a simple example - not an essay on the nature of iron oxide).
Where are the bones of the men who were 900 years old when the flood occured, so you can study the wear on their joints? I dont know - maybe they are all at the bottom of the ocean, under a mile of rock and sediment.
If people lived to be 900 years old, did their joints wear at the same rate they do now? I dont know - maybe the human body rejuvinated itself better back then, and thats why we no longer live to BE 900.
Science is up to its neck in assumptions - they tend to find what they want to see to support their pet theory
but there are more things we dont know than things we do. Were the pyramids mined from quarrys? or did the builder know how to make granite like we know how to make concrete?
Where are the controlled experiments that scientist use to determine how long it takes for a layer of material to become a layer of rock?
Where are the controlled experiments in which scientists have turned bones into fossils?
Using concrete and plaster I can make a 'fossil' in a day
Diamonds take millions of years to form in the ground, right?
but we can make diamonds and rubies and saphires in a lab in 24 hours!
Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: Science is up to its neck in assumptions...
...there are more things we dont know than things we do.
Ray, this is not a flame, but a genuine question.
You have a tag line of "Question wonder and be wierd." But your questioning, wondering, and wierding appears to be focused against only religion.
Why do you not question, wonder, and be wierd regarding the scientific community? Why do you have the unwavering ability to believe as fact anything and everything scientists put forth?
If it means anything, I think your tag line has merit, but it should apply to all aspects of life not just one.
IP: Logged
12:40 PM
Savagery Member
Posts: 1174 From: Warrenville, IL Registered: Jul 2002
IMO, God is more of a figure for comfort now. Yes, there are things that science has not explained. But, do you believe in the easter bunny? Santa Claus? Tooth Fairy? How long do you think you would have believed in jolly old saint nick had nobody told you he did not exist? (And you didn't see your parents under that tree ). My point is, it's IMPOSSIBLE to disprove the existence of god. You just can't. The only way to come close to this is for science to prove EVERYTHING, know everything, and figure out how it all happened. This isn't easy. So, god is a great way to explain it. It's easier to say that god made everything than to swallow the big bang theory, not to mention that believing it goes against everything christians believe in. If somebody ALMOST proved that god exists, would I start believing? NO. I have to be 100% convinced, and that is impossible. You say that people helping people is a sign of God's work? Does that then mean that people are all evil unless God decides to intervene?
Also, imagine how many religions 'talk to god'. They might have 100s of gods, and possibly communicate with them. This happens in america, where priests and the pope and such claim to talk to Him. HOW CAN THE ARABS TALK TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GOD? Answer: they aren't. We aren't. SOMEBODY is lying, because there cannot be 12 gods at work, all dedicated to different religions. There has to be an almighty one, but apparently he tells the arabs to kill americans...unless they are full of BS and just made it up. SO, how do you prove who is really talking to him? You can't, because nobody is.
[This message has been edited by Savagery (edited 09-27-2002).]
Originally posted by DaRkLoRD: ray: the o2 content hasn't even stayed the same in our cities within the last 50 years...
yes it varies a little but no wild swings or big changes and even localy in a fire or smokestack most of the local changes is to additional gases that may temperarily alter % localy only now 0-16 vs 0-18 rates vary but only a tiny amounts
what does swing is 03 ozone but thats still 0xygen in the total counts
Gold you said ""Why do you not question, wonder, and be wierd regarding the scientific community? Why do you have the unwavering ability to believe as fact anything and everything scientists put forth""
NO not all of it, multi dimensions in string theory [more than 3-4]hurts my head, as does some parts of quantum fields but A or H-bombs prove the math!!! and I do not like some parts of basic astro -Phy like inflation or dark energy but this aint the place for that discussion
I only jump in to these threads to dispute THUMPER BS, I do not start them
but it is important to know where you have been before desiding where to go next and thumpers are very lost and trying to burn the maps and smash the compass so nobody can get anywhere by try to BS about true facts about our past history
an small example on pbs last night they reran a show about creationests weird ideas like grand canyon is flood related WRONG!!!!! and how they plan to teach this BS in the schools GW BUSH wants to pay my TAX $$$$$$ to thar why this is important
BELIVE WHAT EVER YOU WANT but teach kids TRUE facts NOT THUMPERS BS
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd
IP: Logged
07:31 PM
Leper No longer registered
Report this Post09-27-2002 11:11 PM
Leper
posts Member since
quote
Originally posted by Savagery: If somebody ALMOST proved that god exists, would I start believing? NO. I have to be 100% convinced, and that is impossible.
It's not that you're not beleiving in it, it's that you're ruling it out as a posibility without being 100% convinced that it isn't possible either. http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/ Does this prove anything?
IP: Logged
11:11 PM
PFF
System Bot
Savagery Member
Posts: 1174 From: Warrenville, IL Registered: Jul 2002
Leper, do you believe in God? What if I were to ask you to stop believing in that and become an atheist. You wouldn't- there isn't 100% proof that god does NOT exist. I can admit that. Truth is, I DONT know that god does not exist, I just choose to believe what is proven (many aspects of evolution, but no, far from all of them), rather than what is written. You have to admit, there is more hard evidence that we evolved then the theory of creationism.
I'm not going to read all this thread. Why? Neither side really gets it most of the time.
Did it ever occure to people that they are both the same?
The Evolutionist tries to explain it all in "real time" and very complex terms. The Creationist tries to explain the exact same things in very simple time and terms.
Ultimately they are both explaining the exact same thing.
Think about it....
Ask yourself... How in h_ll do you explain something that may have taken millenia to people who can't read and roughly know time of day by sun position?
Keep in mind when asking that question... if you get it wrong, they will kill you.
------------------ 11-Sept-01, The day the world as we knew it ended.
IP: Logged
11:59 PM
Sep 28th, 2002
Leper No longer registered
Report this Post09-28-2002 05:27 AM
Leper
posts Member since
quote
Originally posted by Savagery: Leper, do you believe in God? What if I were to ask you to stop believing in that and become an atheist. You wouldn't- there isn't 100% proof that god does NOT exist. I can admit that. Truth is, I DONT know that god does not exist, I just choose to believe what is proven (many aspects of evolution, but no, far from all of them), rather than what is written. You have to admit, there is more hard evidence that we evolved then the theory of creationism.
I try to keep my options open. I can't rule anything out, so I don't. I'm not trying to get anyone to believe in anything, but to at least see that. Even if I don't choose to live my life by a classified set of beliefs, I try and at least see where they're coming from.
Theogre's right, as much as people try to claim they are, creationism and evolution aren't really mutially exclusive. Neither is the existance of God and the Big Bang Theory.
Are you guys still debating theories? The fact is that neither theory is based on fact. Please just agree to disagree and save on bandwith. Just my opinion.
Jane
BTW, sorry hugh. I couldn't resist adding to the bandwith while making a plea to save bandwith.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 09-28-2002).]
the universe came into existance SOMEHOW - and how it happened DOES have a profound influence on how you live your life, what things are possible, what things are not
what your place and purpose are
and what your future is going to be like.
Its all tied to together - one way or the other - its not a meaningless jabberjaw conversation or debate club subject
its the ultimate reality! How did I get here? why am I here? what is expected of me? where am I going after this?
I'm sorry, I should have said are you guys still arguing theories. The debate was over after the first couple of pages. So now everyone is trying to convert each other to their way of thinking. Everyone has made their own choice already. So DUH! Unless someone has a new theory they would like to introduce here for debate, What's the point Ken? Is there a new point to these theories that hasn't been debated yet? Am I missing something? No flame intended.
Jane
IP: Logged
08:39 PM
Mach10 Member
Posts: 7375 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
Ken: First of all, you will find that the people discussed in the old testament ARE super-heroes. Yes, they have specific faults. In fact, most of them are well-known for it. The whole point is that humans reading it should be humbled, they should draw parrallels with their own struggles, and look to the fables for solutions to their problems. That is implied.
But at the same time, these are people that are selectively written about, made examples of. They have a particular trait, and they are punished for it. Not a particularly good cross-section for every-day life statistical analysis.
Why write about your short-comings? I'm not making the assumption that the bible is one big fallacy. I'm a roman-Catholic. I've got religion. I have my beliefs.
What I AM intimating is that the old-testament was never intended as a blow-by-blow account of history. You say I can't pick and choose "fact" or "Fiction" from the bible.
I say I can. I say that the old-testament was written to relay God's messages through easily-remembered stories. God most likely had a very big part to play in writing them. Probably many of the fables themselves are true. But they don't HAVE to be. I should also add that even being "fiction" does not detract from the original meaning; For example, take Abraham's child-sacrifice thing. Even if it never happened, the message is quite clear; You should be willing to do most anything to serve God.
Even if the world was not created in 7 days precisely, the point that God made it happen is still quite clear. And the list goes on. If you are devout in faith, it shouldn't matter the context in which the messages are delivered; but that the messages themselves are important.
As Triad says, "Evolution can be a tool of God."
Massive flooding causes deposition over most of the area, with the exception being major causeways, which is where the sediment is dregded up and redeposited elsewhere. The fact is that while there is evidence for a flood within historical reference timelines, there is no evidence (yet) for a flood of the magnitude which is described in the bible. There is ongoing research into this, with some promising results. This will most likely change matters.
However, Ray is still right; We have been digging things and people up from before the period in which the flood was slated to arrive. You won't find much evidence to support multi-centarian lifespans of humans. When I say "not much" I mean NONE.
Human osteology is a subject where I do feel somewhat qualified to comment on. It's not just the wear on bones, but the wear on teeth, too. Teeth stop growing after the mid-20s of an adult human male. By 120, they are mostly worn out. With primitive foods of the time ("primitive" meaning agragarian) , the wear on teeth is massively accelerated. You do not find human frames surviving in agricultural societies living all that long.
"Archeologist insist prehistoric man lived with bear skins and stone knives" Archaeologists do NO such thing. Archaeologists "insist" based on EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. There is (at least not supposed to be) no assumptions made about a society that cannot be at least correlated with available physical remains or artifacts. You find an israelite buried in a bearskin cloak, clutching a stone knife. What the hell you supposed to think? Obviouslyt this is a gross over-simplification... But the point rests.
About your iron-oxide example? Yep, a pile of fine powder is almost worthless... And that is where the archaeologist comes in.
WHERE did you find the powder. HOW does it appear to have gotten there? WHAT does it appear to be used for? WHO used the powder? and WHY?
The pile of powder on my desk hold different meaning if it was given to me in an unlabeled envelope, versus an envelope labeled "Scraped from neat red rock"
The artifact itself tells very little of the story. that is why archaeologists HATE people bringing them arrow-heads.
Do yourself a favor. Go on a dig, and see how things are done. Then tell me again how flawed it is?
As for your "pyramid" argument, that one has been argued over, and over. There are writings on the subject of pyramid construction.
You need several hundred 400-ton blocks, and tens of thousands of slaves to build it. Some goof-offs tried to shuffle some similar blocks around, but gave up when their arms started hurting. "Oh," they cried, "It's impossible!"
However, skeletal remains of slaves and workers tell the story of lethal, back-breaking labor. grotesque damage and wear to the joints suggest that they were worked to death.
Personally, to say with finality whether you can move a 400t block of limestone with a team of a couple hundred slaved collared to it, you need to make the volunteers lose their yuppy clothes, and whip the buggers until they either die, or the rock is in place. Never underestimate the power of slave-labor.
*edit* I read your latest post, Ken. I agree. Wholeheartedly.
Another few odds-and-ends;
Evolution is not about how long you live, or how many children you have, but about the species in general. We, today, are far more "evolved" simply because there are that many MORE of us. We are doing quite nicely as a species.
Now, individually? This is a topic of some debate. Truth be told, physically, we are "de-evolving" more and more each passing generation. Our bodies are weaker, less resiliant, and yes, maybe our life-spans HAVE shrunk.
From an evolutionary perspective, ever since that monkey beat the crap out of that other monkey with a stick (blatant Space: 2001 drop), we effectively REMOVED ourselves from the food-chain, skipping a few levels, then re-emerging at the top. Suddenly, it isn't physical traits in our bodies that let us survive as "fittest."
It gets cold, we kill a bear, and wear it's skin, rather than grow fur.
We need to cut something up, we make a stone-knife rather than grow longer, sharper teeth.
We need to move a heavy object, we get a big enough lever and a place to stand on, rather than grow larger.
We need to cross the oceans, we build boats rather than grow gills.
We need to cross FASTER, we make planes, rather than fly.
We get sick, we make a cure, we don't wait for half of us to die to develop a natural resistance.
It's a new concept in the natural world, called "SOCIAL EVOLUTION." It almost completely replaces biological evolution. Left on our own, we'd all die out of exposure very quickly. No clothes, no tools. We lack the fur to keep us sheltered from the elements. We lack teeth to hunt prey, we lack stomachs to digest most plants properly and efficiently. We'd all die.
Instead, we can ADAPT to our climates. If it gets cold, we get our fur coats, but we ALSO teach our children to bundle up. Effectively, we have eliminated several hundred generations of biological evolution right there.
[This message has been edited by Mach10 (edited 09-28-2002).]
Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: are you guys still debating theories?!
DUH!
the universe came into existance SOMEHOW - and how it happened DOES have a profound influence on how you live your life, what things are possible, what things are not
what your place and purpose are
and what your future is going to be like.
Its all tied to together - one way or the other - its not a meaningless jabberjaw conversation or debate club subject
its the ultimate reality! How did I get here? why am I here? what is expected of me? where am I going after this?
Get it?
Ken a very good post. yes it is the ultimate reality. and thats why we can't allow thumpers to teach BS about a 6000 year old univerce, with trees before stars, in public schools as true facts, they are storys not facts.
Mach your post was allso good is the lack of evo in our future a minus or a plus NOW or 10k years down the line??
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd
IP: Logged
11:54 PM
Sep 29th, 2002
Aaron71771 Member
Posts: 34 From: Traverse City, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Many times in evolution debates we are faced with a science versus bible facade. The underlying problem is typically the skeptic uses science to sneer at the religious. The assumption the skeptic seems to be making is scientific knowledge leads to quality philosophical world views.
Here is my argument against this assumtion:
I think that most religious skeptics are very intelligent people. They see to be in the above average crowd in terms of intellectual prowlness. It seems that a large majority of them are also well versed in current scientific knowledge. But there is the problem, man’s base of knowledge is ever growing as he uses technology to probe the seemingly infinitely large universe and the near infinitely small sub atomic world, his scientific knowledge base is ever increasing. As such philosophical views made today based on today’s knowledge base may change greatly in a few years as man’s scientific knowledge base increases. Since the birth of disciplined scientific inquiry man has had a tendency to make philosophical leaps based on his scientific knowledge base. An example of philosophical leaps is evolution being the skeptics answer to the biblical creation record.
Science is an ever advancing practice and many scientists who find themselves in the spot light today may find themselves modifying their theories in light of additional scientific discovery, and if history is any indication of the future, many current scientific “truths” WILL be highly modified in the next 100 years. But this is the role of science and this is how it should be. The problem is when today’s skeptic uses current scientific knowledge as an argument against theism. Of course the door springs both ways and the theist could just as easily be at fault for using scientific knowledge to further their case, an example being using big bang cosmology to argue for a cause of the universe.
Einstein initially rejected big bang cosmology because of its philosophical meaning of cause in the origin of the universe which leads to there being a casual agent. He went so far as to introduce a cosmological constant in his calculations in attempt to preserve steady state cosmology. Of course he later accepted big bang cosmology and accepted the philosophical baggage is introduced. This is an excellent example where one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, philosophical assumption got in the way of scientific advancement. Again the door swings both ways, and our knowledge base being incomplete by an unknown amount (and I would assume there is plenty we still don’t know) scientific knowledge as a base for philosophical views is poorly lacking. Views themselves which may end up very lacking because of the foundation they were built upon are lacking
The core problem with the assumption is scientific knowledge does not equally lead to complete (or even correct) philosophical world views, because such knowledge itself is incomplete by an unknown amount.
The point? Science and religion generally don't mix. Wanna know how light is made? Ask a scientist. Wanna know why anything exists at all? Ask a philosopher. The expirence of life is improved by keeping these domains in their respective order. Yes, we can learn a lot from a scientist and we can also learn a lot from a philosopher. But applying the scientific method to philosophy just does not work. Since we don't know how complete our body of knowledge is at any point in time we are unable to make any philosophical decisions based upon such body of knowledge.
We like to sneer at past generations for making foolish philosophy, thinking we "know better" today. The truth is in 100 years from now, we will be the ones being sneered at. However complete man's knowledge of the natural world is, it will never be enough to tell him where his place is in it.
your discussion on science, philosophy and religion is interesting - but the conclusion you draw has already been conceided by the definition of science itself.
Science only seeks to understand or investigate those things that ARE understandable, measureable, repeatable, and controlable.
One result of this becomes apparent when science puts humans in it sights. We can create incredible physical things with matter and energy - but we cant help a person who is depressed - we cant stop people from wanting to abuse children - we cant cure drug addicts - we cant put an end to crime or war...
Why? because humans are not physical objects that obey any specific rules - each person has a mind of its own, and what is logical for one person to do, another will reject, even if it cost them their own life.
So many people have concluded that science has PROVEN that the bible is incorrect - wrong, or outright lies.
Science could not even 'prove' that OJ Simpson murdered his ex wife - DNA evidence and all.
If all the scientific evidence says the universe is a bizillion years old - that doesnt mean it IS that old
God could easily have created the universe already set in motion, so it would look like it was ancient
and as for philosophy, the only thing you can know for certain from pholosophy is that you exist (because you think...) anything beyond that depends on assumptions and speculation - you could be a brain in a jar on a shelf somewhere, and the entire universe as you know it could be an illusion pumped in through wires implanted into your nerve endings.
The connection between science and philosophy and religion is thin and shallow. Science has given me a 2600 lb machine with a 130HP engine that I can use to transport me anywhere I want to go. I can drive it to an observatory and look at distant galaxies, or I can drive it to the top of a mountain and sit and contemplate my navel, or I can drive it to the Open Door Mission to spend the day helping some lost soul understand that his life is important and he has value as a human being.
If we look to science to tell us what our philosophy or religion should be, then we are a sorry lot.
[This message has been edited by Ken Wittlief (edited 09-29-2002).]
think of it this way - religion is more concerned with the relationship between God and man.
Can you use science to define, validate, or qualify a relationship?
Can you prove scientifically that you love your spouse? (You dont want to go there :c)
Love is a state of being between two individuals that is graceful and forgiving. If a birthday is forgotten, that does not prove love is absent.
something else - if the idea of the universe being created 'set in motion' bothers you, look at it this way. If the earth was created, then was it created hanging in space, some distance from the sun - and then God had to set it spinning on a 24hr period, then give it a push around the sun with a 365.25 day period - in which case you would expect to find a giant finger-dent where God pushed the earth into orbit?
or would God create the earth already spinning and already in orbit around the sun?
A silly question, but most likely 'already in motion' is the most logical answer.
Its only when you try to pin the bible down to one specific detailed account of how createion happened that science can then start shooting holes in it
but that still doenst 'prove' that God did not create the universe, it only proves that YOUR understanding or interpetation of how God created the universe is incorrect.
BTW remember that God is master of space, energy and TIME as well - He could easily created the universe from one central location (ala the Big bang), but acellerated time so it all happend in one 'day', and then cranked time down to what it is now.
If a 'scientist' observed the space shuttle rolling out to the launch pad from the assembly building for 24 hrs, he would conclude that the space shuttle is capible of traveling at a max speed 1mph
and would not be expecting what happens when they get to T-zero!
[This message has been edited by Ken Wittlief (edited 09-30-2002).]
Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: think of it this way - religion is more concerned with the relationship between God and man.
Can you use science to define, validate, or qualify a relationship?
Can you prove scientifically that you love your spouse? (You dont want to go there :c)
Love is a state of being between two individuals that is graceful and forgiving. If a birthday is forgotten, that does not prove love is absent.
something else - if the idea of the universe being created 'set in motion' bothers you, look at it this way. If the earth was created, then was it created hanging in space, some distance from the sun - and then God had to set it spinning on a 24hr period, then give it a push around the sun with a 365.25 day period - in which case you would expect to find a giant finger-dent where God pushed the earth into orbit?
or would God create the earth already spinning and already in orbit around the sun?
A silly question, but most likely 'already in motion' is the most logical answer.
Its only when you try to pin the bible down to one specific detailed account of how createion happened that science can then start shooting holes in it
but that still doenst 'prove' that God did not create the universe, it only proves that YOUR understanding or interpetation of how God created the universe is incorrect.
BTW remember that God is master of space, energy and TIME as well - He could easily created the universe from one central location (ala the Big bang), but acellerated time so it all happend in one 'day', and then cranked time down to what it is now.
If a 'scientist' observed the space shuttle rolling out to the launch pad from the assembly building for 24 hrs, he would conclude that the space shuttle is capible of traveling at a max speed 1mph
and would not be expecting what happens when they get to T-zero!
[This message has been edited by Ken Wittlief (edited 09-30-2002).]
There ya go! Here's the high-quality posts I had previously expected!
I'm no astro-physicist, but I see no reason why God can't have created EVERYTHING, and "dumbed it down" for ease-of-printing.
As for the earth in motion thing, a being with the kinda power that God has wouldn't have much trouble cupping the entire half-formed planet in one "hand" and base-ball throwing it around the sun.
Or maybe a big croquet mallet?
[This message has been edited by Mach10 (edited 09-30-2002).]
one of the things Ive always wondered about, almost all ancient calenders had 360 day years - even civilizations that had no contact with each other, so they couldnt all be copying one source
and all it takes to measure the year is a couple sticks in the ground to align on the summer soltist at sunrise - that will get you to within a day
so why is the year 365.25 days now - they couldnt have ALL been 5 days off!
did something smack the earth so hard it slowed down enough to add 5 days to its orbit?!
That would be one huge discontinuity in earths physical history - would of screwed up more than just the length of the year.
OOPS! what was I thinking - if the year was 360 days in the past, then the earth must have been closer to the sun then, and either the mass of the sun changed significantly, reducing its gravity, and slipping us into a higher orbit
or something smack the earth, speeding it up, and pushing it into a higher orbit => longer period.
IP: Logged
08:50 AM
lurker Member
Posts: 12355 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
it's really very simple. you've got 2 incompatible versions of reality. (1) "infallible literal direct word of god" (2) is based on all the science there has ever been, which makes this conversation possible, among other things.
). My point is, it's IMPOSSIBLE to disprove the existence of god. You just can't. The only way to come close to this is for science to prove EVERYTHING, know everything, and figure out how it all happened. This isn't easy. So, god is a great way to explain it. It's easier to say that god made everything than to swallow the big bang theory, not to mention that believing it goes against everything christians believe in. If somebody ALMOST proved that god exists, would I start believing? NO. I have to be 100% convinced, and that is impossible. You say that people helping people is a sign of God's work? Does that then mean that people are all evil unless God decides to intervene? 
11-Sept-01, The day the world as we knew it ended.
